http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/87762/sec-bowl-projections-week-1
Check out the bowl projections. If I'm not supposed to link this, please delete.
Check out the bowl projections. If I'm not supposed to link this, please delete.
Bowl Projections
- Thread starter crushing
- Start date
I hope we make it higher than Music City, but that's a good bowl. I would rather do that than the "Belk" Bowl.
Damn, OM in the Liberty Bowl. That's surprising. Also, crazy how down people are on Missouri this year.
Damn, OM in the Liberty Bowl. That's surprising. Also, crazy how down people are on Missouri this year.
There really isn't an official bowl order any more. The order is Sugar, Orange, Cap One, then the Outback, Music City, Gator, Belk, Texas & Liberty are all grouped together with the SEC office deciding which teams go to which bowl. I strongly suspect geography and which teams have been to which bowls most recently will be big factors (much like last year when Vandy went to Birmingham, UM went to Music City & we went to Liberty).
The Cotton Bowl is one of the playoff bowls, along with the Sugar, Rose, Orange, Fiesta & Peach. The SEC is tied in with the Sugar & the Orange. The Cotton & Peach don't have any conference tie-ins, but either could take an SEC team, especially in years the Sugar or Orange are semi-final bowls.
Part of me likes that setup to help build suspense, but part of me expects it to be used to screw us like we were in the late '90s.
That being said, I had a great time in Nashville, wouldn't really complain about a trip to Houston, and am holding out (likely forlorn) hope for Tampa or, dare I say it, Orlando. Heck, I'd make a third trip to Jacksonville, too.
That being said, I had a great time in Nashville, wouldn't really complain about a trip to Houston, and am holding out (likely forlorn) hope for Tampa or, dare I say it, Orlando. Heck, I'd make a third trip to Jacksonville, too.
I never understood how we were supposedly screwed in the late 90s. The SEC office stood up for us and forced the Cotton Bowl to take us when they wanted Arkansas in 1998. In 1999, the Peach paid out $200,000 less than the Outback, but it was in a much better time slot (not up against 2 other morning NYD bowls), had much better attendance, and was much more convenient for MSU fans to get to. I thought then, and still do, that the Peach was a much better overall bowl than the Outback.
Hell, I had a blast in Shreveport for the new millenium
I don't think I've had a bad time going to any bowl game, and I include Birmingham. I did not make it to Detroit however, though I heard the strip clubs over the canadian border were top shelf.
I don't think I've had a bad time going to any bowl game, and I include Birmingham. I did not make it to Detroit however, though I heard the strip clubs over the canadian border were top shelf.
I think it's going to hurt us as far as prestige goes. Basically, if you're not in the top 3, you're in a bunch, and we'll unfortunately be closer to the less prestigious bowls, so we may get a steady diet of memphis, birmingham, and nashville.
While I really like Nashville, I wouldn't mind having a trip to Charlotte or the bowl in Houston.
First off you have to take into account no bowl in '97, although that had more to do with LT than anyone else. UM guaranteed Detroit ticket sales of a certain number, and he refused to. Still, the SEC office should've found us a slot somewhere.
In '98 I'm not convinced the SEC actually "stood up" for anyone. It was in the Cotton Bowl's contract at the time that they had to take the SEC West champ if they were available. Short of pointing that out to the bowl, no further effort was required. If the clause wasn't there (and it was removed immediately following that season), we weren't headed to Dallas.
In '99, yes, we got a better situation in real life, but back then there was a pre-determined pecking order. We got jumped by UGA at a time that wasn't supposed to happen, bottom line. The "one-loss worse" defense was spun up just to justify that action.
In '98 I'm not convinced the SEC actually "stood up" for anyone. It was in the Cotton Bowl's contract at the time that they had to take the SEC West champ if they were available. Short of pointing that out to the bowl, no further effort was required. If the clause wasn't there (and it was removed immediately following that season), we weren't headed to Dallas.
In '99, yes, we got a better situation in real life, but back then there was a pre-determined pecking order. We got jumped by UGA at a time that wasn't supposed to happen, bottom line. The "one-loss worse" defense was spun up just to justify that action.
I'm selfish so I wouldn't mind Nashville. Easy drive.
Plenty of fun stuff for the wife and kids.
Plenty of fun stuff for the wife and kids.
add the Alamo Bowl and you can set the blue tent up in my yard
plus Six Flags is adding a roller coaster where each car spins independently. And it's usually 65 degrees that time of year.
plus Six Flags is adding a roller coaster where each car spins independently. And it's usually 65 degrees that time of year.
I care more about who we play against than where we go. I want to play a respected power 5 conference team in a bowl. That's all I want.
I just read where Music City gets 2nd choice out of either the ACC or Big10. Just like it was a ton of fun playing Michigan a few years back, it would be cool to play a team like Nebraska, Penn State, or Wisconsin in a bowl game. That said, I imagine that the Music City bowl is going to take an ACC team 9 times out of 10 due to geographic reasons, and that really sucks.
The SEC had nothing to do with us not going to a bowl in 1997. There just weren't nearly as many bowls back then. There's absolutely no reason the SEC wouldn't have done anything it could to find us a bowl, as that would increase revenue for every member of the SEC. We didn't get screwed, we just weren't quite good enough that year.
Whether you're convinced or not, it's a fact the SEC forced the Cotton Bowl to take us and the Cotton Bowl wasn't too happy about it.
In 1999, the Outback picked ahead of the Peach. They had every right to pick UGA over us even though UGA had 1 more loss. The rule was they couldn't pick a team with 2 more losses. So yeah, if you want to say the Outback "screwed" us, I agree. But that screwing was like throwing Brier Rabbit in the briar patch. We wound up in a better bowl than UGA did.
Whether you're convinced or not, it's a fact the SEC forced the Cotton Bowl to take us and the Cotton Bowl wasn't too happy about it.
In 1999, the Outback picked ahead of the Peach. They had every right to pick UGA over us even though UGA had 1 more loss. The rule was they couldn't pick a team with 2 more losses. So yeah, if you want to say the Outback "screwed" us, I agree. But that screwing was like throwing Brier Rabbit in the briar patch. We wound up in a better bowl than UGA did.
I laugh at that every year now, there are even preseason bowl projections now. They even admit the stupidity of it in their opening sentence:
We haven't known which bowl we were going to for sure the last 4 years until bid day and these clowns put out this crap and it takes a nose dive after the first fvckin game of the year. Yeah, thats really informative ESPN..............
We haven't known which bowl we were going to for sure the last 4 years until bid day and these clowns put out this crap and it takes a nose dive after the first fvckin game of the year. Yeah, thats really informative ESPN..............
I know what you are saying Peach v. Outback but in the national scope (Certainly in 1999) the Outback is the better bowl. It certainly almost always chooses the 'better' team ahead of the Peach. They definitely chose UGA over us when we were the better team. I do not hold the hostility that some of our fans do on this but it was a slight, for sure.
The Peach has certainly improved in recent years but it was still 4th or 5th pick in the 90s. The Outback was the choice behind the Sugar and the Citrus. Hell, we made the Peach in 1992 with a 7-4 record (6th in the SEC). UT went to the Outback and was ranked #17.
It has been very obvious through the years that the Outback chooses the 'best' team that is available as long as it is an East team or a power team from the West. The popular belief in the late 90s and early 00s was that the top choice went to the Sugar, 2nd to the Citrus, next best East team (or Ala, Auburn or LSU) to the Outback and the next best West team to the Cotton. This is easily backed up by the evidence of the bowls. I didn't realize how much so until I looked it up. There are only 3 SECW teams to EVER play in the Outback....(those listed above).
And, again. I do realize that the Peach was the better spot for us that year. It provided us with a truly winnable game and an easy place for our fans to venture to. It helped us finish that season on a high note. It just seems that the Outback always chose East teams during that period unless it was a power that be western team. We weren't that team, thus we got passed over. The only years that the Peach chose the better team on paper was when it was a Western team that the Outback did not seem to want.
The Peach has certainly improved in recent years but it was still 4th or 5th pick in the 90s. The Outback was the choice behind the Sugar and the Citrus. Hell, we made the Peach in 1992 with a 7-4 record (6th in the SEC). UT went to the Outback and was ranked #17.
It has been very obvious through the years that the Outback chooses the 'best' team that is available as long as it is an East team or a power team from the West. The popular belief in the late 90s and early 00s was that the top choice went to the Sugar, 2nd to the Citrus, next best East team (or Ala, Auburn or LSU) to the Outback and the next best West team to the Cotton. This is easily backed up by the evidence of the bowls. I didn't realize how much so until I looked it up. There are only 3 SECW teams to EVER play in the Outback....(those listed above).
And, again. I do realize that the Peach was the better spot for us that year. It provided us with a truly winnable game and an easy place for our fans to venture to. It helped us finish that season on a high note. It just seems that the Outback always chose East teams during that period unless it was a power that be western team. We weren't that team, thus we got passed over. The only years that the Peach chose the better team on paper was when it was a Western team that the Outback did not seem to want.
I'm fully cognizant of the number of bowls in '97. I'm also aware of what little esteem the conference held our team in, and how ineffective their efforts were in finding us a berth (if any were made). Look no further than Cincinnati in the Humanitarian Bowl and Oregon in the Las Vegas Bowl.
The Cotton Bowl was contractually obligated to take us. If you think "forcing" means making someone uphold the deal they signed, then so be it.
As for '99, the rule you refer to was not in place at the time. It came about because of that selection by the Outback (along with that bowl's actions in general).
The Cotton Bowl was contractually obligated to take us. If you think "forcing" means making someone uphold the deal they signed, then so be it.
As for '99, the rule you refer to was not in place at the time. It came about because of that selection by the Outback (along with that bowl's actions in general).